I expect the Fed to announce it is raising rates again. The goal being that when markets dump on the news, Trump can vent more about how the Fed is making bad decisions and hurting the economy. I think there really is a 38D chess game going on here but Trump and the Fed are on one side of the board and everyone else is on the other side. There's bigger agendas underway, with Trump playing (controlled) opposition to the Fed.

I'm thinking it's a camel's nose under the tent sort of thing. Are gun rights folks sufficiently dumb and numb enough yet under Trump to let him "just stick the mushroom tip in"?
(Yeah I know, I grossed myself out with that reference but it's apropos)

Just don't agree to the driver's license contract and don't consent to jurisdiction. Or alternatively, if you agreed to the contract, set your terms for your end of administering the contract dispute up front when approached by the cop. Who works for free? Think about it.
It's all business and all voluntary.
"Implied consent" and "arbitrary presumptions" are based upon agreeing to the terms of a contract, hence why there's no proof of actual impairment needed. A "driver" agreed to the letter of the contract (the statutory BAC limit) and is violating the terms of the contract. That's all that matters in business law. Did you violate the contract you agreed to? Yes? Liability established. All victimless "crimes" are actually nothing more than contract terms violations being enforced under color of law.
It's all business!

Pretty much all libertarians should have TDS. Thanks for being predictable though! It's like conjuring up spirits at will, posting anything that's not flattering about Trump. POOF! There's SS magically appearing every time.
And let's not get carried away, ok? It's possible that Trump didn't break the law. Saying he didn't do anything wrong is another story entirely.

Judge Nap is not letting up on Trump.
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-news-napolitano-says-trump-is-an-unindicted-co-conspirator-ample-evidence-to-indict-potus/
I'm sure Shillsmyth will be along momentarily to tell us how Judge Nap is the swamp and Trump is the innocent victim in all this. :rolleyes:

I don't know if it's true but I read the other day that since Israel hasn't joined the NNPT, any "aid" provided to Israel is illegal.
An article about the allegation:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/lawsuit-claims-us-aid-to-israel-violates-atomic-pact/

The "fine" was voluntary.
It accomplished what it was designed to do and that is the legacy. It removed more fiat currency from the public and kept tax refunds from entering the real economy, it was a temporary bonanza for insurance companies that knew they were on their way out of existence (thanks to planned coming universal healthcare), and was a temporary job creator to boost various .gov econ figures. Oh, and made the Obamas and their connecteds millions of dollars (remember the ~$40 million website that crashed constantly? Was created by a company owned by Michelle's sorority sister) in the process.

Well that's interesting. Reserving judgment for now of course, since for every half decent move the Trump admin makes, they quickly make a cringe-worthy move, but I do like the trend with more liberty-minded influence. Hopefully it's not just strategic bones to keep us quiet.

That's great and all but doesn't address what he's saying regarding court rules. Assuming prosecutors are following court rules then according to Nap, yes they do have evidence.
It's topics like these that reinforce to me that Trump was told to run for President by his superiors. He has so many skeletons in the closet and surely he knew these people would be coming out of the woodwork yet still ran for the highest profile office in the land? Then when they start coming out of the woodwork, people want to claim the hush payments weren't campaign related. If you don't want your brand damaged or family compromised then you don't voluntarily run for an office that will potentially expose that history to the entire country.

I admit to not tying myself up in the daily Trump Reality Show so my understanding of the situation isn't thorough. Having said that....
If I were prosecuting, the questions would be simple. How long ago did Trump sleep with Daniels, et al? If years ago then why the payoff after he became a candidate, instead of before he became a candidate?
If protecting his family from finding out was the goal, the payoff would have been made long before any candidacy. Trump has always been a public figure and could have been outed at any time by various sources. The timing of the payoff is where a reasonable person would conclude that it was a campaign related payoff.

If a candidate spends personal funds for something that is used as part of a campaign then it is considered an "in kind" contribution by the candidate and is to be reported on campaign finance reports as an in kind contribution. Just because a candidate or someone else spends on behalf of a candidate's campaign, but not directly donated into and spend out of a campaign committee account, doesn't mean it doesn't need to be reported.
eta: It sounds like the center of the issue is whether the payoff can be reasonably construed to be campaign-related or not. If yes, then any in kind contribution would also be subject to donation limit amounts. Obviously, $130k is way above the limit for someone other than the candidate himself. I don't know if FEC rules limit the amount a candidate can in kind contribute/spend but I doubt it, therefore if Trump made the pay-off himself from his own personal funds and reported it as an in kind contribution then he'd likely be fully clear.
FEC may be more specific about such purchases and sounds like you'd know better than I would. I have experience with state campaigns and such purchases may or may not be permitted, depending on circumstances. If a suit is required for a campaign event then purchasing a suit from campaign funds is permitted, for example. Buying a new suit every few weeks or outside of campaign season but with campaign committee funds would be not permitted.

Generally not, though a candidate usually gets an opportunity to justify an expense if the bill was paid from a campaign account. Such expenses from campaign committee funds are very much a gray area of campaign finance that's never really been definitively addressed. The expensive suit would get a lot more leeway as a campaign expense than an expensive watch would. If there's a pattern of questionable use of funds, as opposed to a one-off instance, then it's much harder to justify such expenses.

It's not underfunded. It's cutting staff since the IRS mission and structure is changing. The IRS exists as the private collection agency of the Fed. As the current iteration of the Fed goes away (as the issuer of the global reserve currency), so does the giant IRS bureaucracy.
The Trump tax return creating a nightmare thing is funny since I'd bet dollars to donuts that Trump doesn't file income taxes. Just like Obama doesn't have a birth certificate. They play by a different set of rules than the little people. They know the secrets of the system. Trump's various corporate entities and trusts file taxes but Donald John Trump does not.

Apparently Assad doesn't have to go, after all. Especially since the huge land grabs have been completed and military bases built there. As long as Syrian .mil doesn't attack the new bases, mission accomplished I guess.